910.03
Place of trial generally.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
910.03 Place of trial generally.—
(1) Except as provided in s. 910.035 or in subsection (2), criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed; but if the county is not known, the accused may be charged in two or more counties conjunctively, and before trial the accused may elect the county in which he or she will be tried. By his or her election, the accused waives the right to trial in the county in which the crime was committed. Such election shall have the force and effect of the granting of an application of the accused for change of venue from the county in which the offense was committed to the county in which the case is tried.
(2) After a court orders a change of venue and in order to protect the defendant’s due process rights, the court, upon a motion of any party, shall give priority to any county which closely resembles the demographic composition of the county wherein the original venue would lie.
(3) If a court finds that a fair and impartial jury cannot be impaneled in the county where the offense was committed, and the court determines that once a jury is selected it shall be sequestered, the court on its own motion, or upon a motion of any party, may elect to select a jury from a county other than where the offense was committed. The selection of the alternative county will be governed by the requirements of subsection (2). Upon completion of jury selection, the jury shall be brought for trial to the county where the offense was committed.
History.—s. 162, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(169); s. 75, ch. 70-339; s. 2, ch. 72-45; s. 1, ch. 93-225; s. 1, ch. 94-184; s. 1513, ch. 97-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Chandler v. State
Chandler v. State (2003)
“Pursuant to section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), Chandler initially elected to be tried in Hillsborough County.”
Chandler v. Crosby (2006)
“5 at 621-22, as discussed infra, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 910.03 (1) (1993) to conduct the trial in Pinellas County where a jury picked from Orange County would be sequestered.”
State v. Anderson (2005)
“1999) (discussing broader legislation that provides that "where an attorney general concludes that an offense was committed somewhere within the state, but `it is impossible to determine in which county it occurred, the offense may be alleged in the indictment to have been…”
Sailor v. State (1999)
“See § 910.03 Fla. Stat. (1971). [11] Even if rule 3.”
State v. Losada (2012)
“LEGAL ANALYSIS Section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “Except as provided in s.”
Leon v. State (1997)
“” Moreover, section 910.03, Florida Statutes (1995), adds to the constitutional provision that: “Except as provided in s.”
State v. Kotecki (2012)
“A different statute, section 910.03, Florida Statutes (2010), covers venue in criminal trials.”
State v. Stephens (1991)
“[13] Section 910.03 would have authorized this trial in Seminole County for the burglary in Volusia County, because the burglary was part of a criminal episode which partly took place in Seminole County.”
Martin v. State (1986)
“Section 910.03, Florida Statutes, states: Except as provided in s.”
State v. Stephens (1992)
“Section 910.03 would have authorized this trial in Seminole County for the burglary in Volu-sia County, because the burglary was part of a criminal episode which partly took place in Seminole County.”
Crittendon v. State (1976)
“; § 910.03, F.S. 1975. The State, pointing to evidence that the murder party assembled, prepared themselves and picked up their victim in Duval County, claims the benefit of § 910.”
Stanek-Cousins v. State (2005)
“…to expand the definition of territorial jurisdiction to include exactly what the trial judge had done in Kohut. See §§ 910.03(3), 26.021(21).”
— 910.03(1) — 11 cases
Chandler v. State (2003)
“Pursuant to section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), Chandler initially elected to be tried in Hillsborough County.”
State v. Losada (2012)
“LEGAL ANALYSIS Section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “Except as provided in s.”
Chandler v. Crosby (2006)
“5 at 621-22, as discussed infra, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 910.03 (1) (1993) to conduct the trial in Pinellas County where a jury picked from Orange County would be sequestered.”
Sailor v. State (1999)
“See § 910.03 Fla. Stat. (1971). [11] Even if rule 3.”
State v. Kotecki (2012)
“A different statute, section 910.03, Florida Statutes (2010), covers venue in criminal trials.”
— 910.03(3) — 5 cases
Chandler v. State (2003)
“Pursuant to section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), Chandler initially elected to be tried in Hillsborough County.”
Chandler v. Crosby (2006)
“5 at 621-22, as discussed infra, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 910.03 (1) (1993) to conduct the trial in Pinellas County where a jury picked from Orange County would be sequestered.”
Sailor v. State (1999)
“See § 910.03 Fla. Stat. (1971). [11] Even if rule 3.”
State v. Losada (2012)
“LEGAL ANALYSIS Section 910.03(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “Except as provided in s.”
Stanek-Cousins v. State (2005)
“…to expand the definition of territorial jurisdiction to include exactly what the trial judge had done in Kohut. See §§ 910.03(3), 26.021(21).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.